I read somewhere that pm-utils and laptop-mode-tools now share many common functions, thus the conflict. You should only have one or the other, but as what the devs recommended, just let laptop-mode-tools go and make use of powerdevil for laptop power management

moose

Post subject:Posted: 13.02.2011, 16:32

Joined: 2011-02-12
Posts: 23

Status: Offline

Thanks for the info guys.

I didn't know about this. I don't know if powerdevil works better but it sure offered less options than laptop-mode when I got this habit of installing it.

Now that I kicked laptop-mode-tools, suspend/resume on my Thinkpad now works flawlessly.

moose

Post subject:Posted: 13.02.2011, 22:11

Joined: 2011-02-12
Posts: 23

Status: Offline

I have already disabled laptop-mode while trying to fix my backlight issue. Now I plan on removing it during my next dist-upgrade. Hopefully it will fix some of my power management issue too.

In the mean time, I'm gonna check pm-utils, I didn't know I had installed.

/edit:

According to pm-utils readme file, it only deals with suspend and hibernate, and not power management as laptop mode offers. pm-utils even make use of laptop-mode-tools. Too bad they're conflicting, I'm gonna miss laptop mode granularity.

timrichardson

Post subject:Posted: 14.02.2011, 02:52

Joined: 2010-09-12
Posts: 66
Location: Melbourne
Status: Offline

in /usr/lib/pm-utils/power.d
there are scripts showing that pm-utils does more than in the past. I have a suspicion that the improvement is due to Ubuntu.
Not sure how well it works; the power-saving mode I'm most interested in is for my Intel integrated wifi, which is supported by both pm-utils and laptop-mode-tools, but not by the kernel's driver

_________________There are some who call me Tim

moose

Post subject:Posted: 14.02.2011, 10:56

Joined: 2011-02-12
Posts: 23

Status: Offline

If you don't already know about it, you'll probably be interested in powertop. It's quite handy regarding power consumption and power saving.

DeepDayze

Post subject:Posted: 14.02.2011, 14:22

Joined: 2010-09-11
Posts: 616
Location: USA
Status: Offline

So that looks like pm-utils will be the one and only package needed for all power management needs for both desktops and laptops

finotti

Post subject:Posted: 14.02.2011, 17:25

Joined: 2010-09-12
Posts: 435

Status: Offline

moose wrote:

If you don't already know about it, you'll probably be interested in powertop. It's quite handy regarding power consumption and power saving.

I *think* that the slh kernels are not compiled with the proper parameters to allow powertop fully to work...

slam

Post subject:Posted: 14.02.2011, 17:34

Team Member

Joined: 1970-01-01
Posts: 607
Location: w3
Status: Offline

finotti wrote:

I *think* that the slh kernels are not compiled with the proper parameters to allow powertop fully to work...

Those are not "proper parameters", but instead settings doing potential harm to everyone else (=99,99% of our users) not using powertop. If you insist on using all "features" of powertop, you need to re-compile our kernel for your needs.
Greetings,
Chris

Are you sure about this ? I remember it was so in a previous sidux version, and powertop would complain on startup about kernel options being disabled. Now with aptosid 2011-01 it doesn't complain at all and seems to just work out of the box.

Can you provide some details about the potential harm from these settings or using powertop with aptosid ?

slam

Post subject:Posted: 16.02.2011, 00:15

Team Member

Joined: 1970-01-01
Posts: 607
Location: w3
Status: Offline

moose wrote:

Are you sure about this ? I remember it was so in a previous sidux version, and powertop would complain on startup about kernel options being disabled. Now with aptosid 2011-01 it doesn't complain at all and seems to just work out of the box.

Can you provide some details about the potential harm from these settings or using powertop with aptosid ?

The powertop issues have been discussed in detail in this forum (and the sidux forum) already. This topic is about laptop-mode-tools, by the way. If you have new facts about powertop, and want to discuss them, please start a fresh topic. Thanks.
Greetings,
Chris

The reason for powertop not being included have been asked several times in this forum (and the sidux forum) already, and I keep pointing people at the search function although this gives no relevant results.

FTFY.

You don't have to remind me about the topic, I'm the OP.

I used the search function *before* asking, and it seems to be broken because it returns no useful results, and there's no trace of powertop being discussed in details, only you saying it is so.

I also used the search function of the sidux forum archives, and most results are in german and the others are people asking the same question and getting answer apart from one where you posted a now broken link.

The only two kind of relevant info I've found are

Quote:

short answer - slh does not want it to be enabled

and

Quote:

The _objective_ reason it is not enabled is that such feature may introduce some overhead and anyone able to run powertop and make system/package modification based on it could also be able to compile and install a kernel with required feature sets. Therefore, it's not really a key feature to include in a general purpose kernel such as that which come with sidux.

Hardly what I would call discussed in details, and certainly not providing any details about potential harm.

Now If you do have something of value to contribute to this topic, you are very welcome to do so. But giving broken advices with a "I know the answer but I won't provide it" attitude is certainly not helping.